Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series最新文献

{"title":"Women Who Opt Out: The Debate over Working Mothers and Work-Family Balance","authors":"Bernie D. Jones","doi":"10.5860/choice.50-1794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.50-1794","url":null,"abstract":"This book is an edited collection of writings by leading scholars in the field of work and family research. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach in questioning the thesis Lisa Belkin developed in her well-publicized October 26, 2003 New York Times article “The Opt-Out Revolution,” that highly educated women who enter the workplace tend to leave upon marrying and having children. ABOUT THE EDITOR: Bernie D. Jones is associate professor at Suffolk University Law School. Her research and teaching interests are in property, legal theory and legal history.The Table of Contents and informational material about the book are available to download here.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"305 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116195686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Teaching Difficult Concepts: Teaching Students to Write Specific, Detailed Analogies","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1346451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1346451","url":null,"abstract":"An article explaining the problem getting legal writing students to use the specific facts and details of their cases in their legal analyses and detailing an exercise to teach this skill.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125141440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Case Comment: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 1996","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1346464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1346464","url":null,"abstract":"An entry in the Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties explaining the United States Supreme Court's decision in Schmerber v. California upholding the constitutionality of the compelled extraction of blood sample evidence from an arrestee as \"real\" evidence as opposed to a \"testimonial\" communication.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115135919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Law School Rankings, Faculty Scholarship, and Associate Deans for Faculty Research","authors":"Richard Buckingham, D. D'Angelo, S. Vaughn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.965032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.965032","url":null,"abstract":"The authors contend that a boom in law school rankings has encouraged many U.S. law schools to take new measures to encourage and publicize faculty scholarship. The establishment of associate deans for faculty research is one such measure. The authors conducted a study to determine the number of law schools that have these dean-level positions. They argue that many law schools have established these positions as part of their efforts to improve their standing in the increasingly important rankings. The authors begin with a historical overview of the original law school model and discuss how that model evolved over time. They focus on how those changes led to a competitive law school market that helped lay the groundwork for U.S. News & World Report and other law school rankings. They then explore numerous alternative ranking methodologies and conclude with a study of ABA-accredited law schools that have appointed associate deans for faculty research.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116530404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Precedent in Investor-State Arbitration","authors":"Christopher Gibson, C. R. Drahozal","doi":"10.54648/joia2006033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2006033","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the jurisprudential value of Tribunal decisions and awards from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. The article considers four factors for assessing the precedential value of awards and decisions of international tribunals: (i) the integrity and authoritative standing of the court or tribunal issuing the earlier decision; (ii) the similarity of the relevant facts in the two cases, (iii) the similarity of the law relied on as necessary to making the decision (the decisional law); and (iv) the merits or instructive value of the prior tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision - hence, its exposition of the law. Applying these factors to the jurisprudence of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal demonstrates the importance of that jurisprudence as persuasive authority in investor-State arbitration. Part I of the article examines the extent to which Tribunal precedent has been cited by parties and tribunals in investor-State arbitrations. The citation analysis finds significant citation of Tribunal precedent in awards and decisions in arbitrations administered by the International Centre for Investment Disputes (ICSID), and in party submissions in arbitrations under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Thus, the awards and decisions of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal have been and likely will continue to be an important source of authority in investor-State arbitration.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122077289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Contract Formalism, Scientism, and the M-Word: A Short Reaction to Professor Movsesian's Under-Theorization Thesis","authors":"Jeffrey M. Lipshaw","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.899210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.899210","url":null,"abstract":"In two recent essays, Professor Mark L. Movsesian has suggested that a significant difference between the classical formalism of Williston and the formalism of contemporary contracts scholars is the extent to which the earlier work was under-theorized. I want to suggest an area in which there is a consistency to the under-theorization between the classical and the modern contract formalists: the extent to which theorization in anything that approaches metaphysics is, and has been, consistently anathema. Modern theorizing is overwhelmingly of a particular form: dispassionate social science inquiry into how we tick, rarely questioned but implicit norms shaped solely around the utilitarian, if not material, consequence of choices, all seasoned by the occasional post-modern expression of futility and desperation around the indeterminacy of moral issues. It does not address the way we might think about solving the problem outside of the formal models (whether classically or economically based) of the law. In a brief response to Professor Movsesian, I encourage debating over contract law not just in the context of pragmatics of instrumental reason, but as part of a broader inquiry into and struggle with the ends to which any endeavor is directed.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"201 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122570643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Next Stage of Forfeiture Reform","authors":"Eric D. Blumenson, Eva S. Nilsen","doi":"10.1525/FSR.2001.14.2.76","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/FSR.2001.14.2.76","url":null,"abstract":"One problematic aspect of federal forfeiture law which remained untouched by the recent Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act is a provision authorizing law enforcement agencies to retain assets they seize for their own use. Indeed, pursuant to an adoption provision, a local police force is authorized to federalize its drug-related seizures and, upon forfeiture, receive back 80% of the assets for its own use. Many small police forces have been able to enhance their budgets several-fold via such forfeitures. In a previous, 1998 article, we argued that this arrangement threatens effective crime control and evenhanded justice by distorting police and prosecutorial agendas. We also argued that the arrangement may be unconstitutional on due process and separation of powers grounds. In this article, we describe various routes to reform of this dangerous arrangement. We first identify several situations in which litigation might bear fruit, and detail both due process and other constitutional objections to forfeiture in those cases. We then turn to the legislative route, with particular emphasis on state reforms that would not only eliminate the conflict of interest that exists under some state statutes, but also foreclose local police from evading their state's distribution formula through federal adoption.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134190703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'The Past Never Vanishes': A Contextual Critique of the Existing Indian Family Doctrine","authors":"Lorie Graham","doi":"10.2307/20068871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20068871","url":null,"abstract":"I don't know my own culture, . . . I am going to need your help in understanding . . . . Teach me, teach my children. These are the words of a forty-three-year-old Navajo woman on her first visit back to the Navajo Nation since her birth. Stolen as an infant, along with her twin brother, and adopted out on the black market, she was finally reunited with her family and community. Her journey home comes at a time when Native American nations are fighting proposed legislation and court-made rules that seek to limit the reach of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). Congress passed the ICWA in response to the massive displacement of Native American children to non-Indian adoptive homes, foster care, and educational institutions by federal, state and private child welfare authorities. While there were a myriad of interrelated factors that led up to this Indian child welfare crisis, at its core was the failure of mainstream society to recognize and respect the cultural values and social norms of Native American nations. The assimilative attitudes that Native American children were better off growing up in a non-Indian environment did not surface overnight. Rather it percolated from centuries of U.S. sanctioned policies - from boarding schools, to placing out programs, to Indian adoption projects - aimed at the erasure of Native American cultures. The passage of the ICWA marked a reversal in federal Indian policy toward one of self-determination for Native American nations. However, judicially created exceptions to the ICWA, such as the Existing Indian Family doctrine, threaten to undermine this landmark legislation and return us to the policies of the past. In order to demonstrate how these judicially created exceptions perpetuate past assimilative attitudes, this article begins with a historical discussion of the treatment of American Indian children in this country. Within this larger historical context, the article provides a critique of the Existing Indian Family Doctrine and explores some current ideological debates that may be underlying recent challenges to the ICWA.","PeriodicalId":361185,"journal":{"name":"Suffolk University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"398 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123390894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}